Should Citibike Require Its Users To Wear Helmets?

 They prevent injuries.  They save lives.  But do they stop people from riding?

In some cases, the answer could be "yes," at least in the case of eBikes in public share programs like Citibike.  That is a conclusion drawn from a number of studies in the decade or so since eBikes have proliferated on the streets of New York and other cities.  

And that is the rationale behind the opposition to Assembly Bill 590, sponsored by Amy Paulin (D) of Westchester County.  If passed, it would require 16- and 17-year-olds in New York State to wear helmets when riding pedal-assisted (Class 1) or low-speed throttle-controlled (Class 2) eBikes.  

From the Streetsblog photoshop desk.

In addition to the studies, what evidence exists for the fear that a helmet mandate would deter riders?  Well, under the laws of New York City--which has, by far, the largest bike and eBike share program (Citibike) in the US, no one over the age of 13 is required to wear a helmet.  And Citibike allows anyone over 16 to rent an eBike.

But it's not only Citibike and other eBike sharing programs that provide the opposition to Bill 590 and similar proposals.  Members of racial, ethnic, sexual and gender minorities are also against them.  They cite, among other things, incidents that led Seattle to repeal its helmet requirement three years ago.  Edwin Lindo, who identifies as Central American Indigenous, cited statistics from the city's Municipal Court showing that 17.3 percent of summonses for not wearing helmets were issued to Blacks, who represent only 4.7 percent of the city's cyclists.  The numbers for Native American and Alaska Native cyclists were 1 and 0.5 percent, respectively.

In other words, there is the fear that a new helmet mandate will not only deter young people, but also members of "minority" groups--and low-income people--from using eBikes, or even regular bicycles, because it will "invite cops to target youths, particular those of color," according to Amy Sohn in Streetsblog NYC.

Proponents of the new bill, on the other hand, see the potential for preventing injury or even saving lives as outweighing other concerns.  "My only concern is for the safety of the people riding the bikes," declared Assembly Transportation Committee Chair William Magnarelli, a Democrat from Syracuse.  While not citing them directly, he said that studies indicate an alarming rise in severe injuries among eBikers.  One such study, published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reported a 49-fold increase in the number of head injuries among eBike riders from 2017 to 2022.  Some of that rise is of course attributable to the dramatic growth in eBiking, especially in the early part of the COVID pandemic (2020-21).  But another, more troubling reason is this:  Ebike riders, at least in the US, are far less likely to wear helmets than their counterparts on traditional pedal bicycles.  

And, in my own observation, here in New York City, a great many of those bareheaded eBikers are delivery workers--nearly all of whom are immigrants and/or people of color.

Taking The Scenic Route Away From Profits

The COVID-19 pandemic brought us all sorts of deniers.  There were those who believed, even as they were dying from it, that the virus didn't exist--or that it was created by a Chinese lab or Bill Gates-- funded by George Soros because, well, don't you know, he funds Antifa, gender affirmation surgery and everything else Fox News fans hate.

Only slightly less irrational were those who claimed vaccines were ineffective or were created by Bill Gates, who installed microchips in them.  And, of course, it was all paid for by you-know-who.

During that annus horribilis of 2020, there was another kind of denial not directly related to COVID.  That, of course, had to do with the election:  Of course Donald Trump couldn't have lost because, well, he never loses at anything.  There absolutely must have been voter fraud or some other nefarious activity that ushered Joe Biden into office.

Now here's another form of denial I hadn't heard about until today:  the COVID pandemic-induced bicycle shortage was--well, it wasn't. At least, that's what Jay Beaman has said.

Jay Beaman in his shop, Scenic Routes.  Photo by Nicholas David for Mission Local.

He isn't someone who went down a QAnon rabbit hole when he had too much time on his hands after being furloughed from his job.  While he did indeed get sent home when the restaurant where he worked closed during the COVID lockdown, which came earlier and was stricter in his hometown of San Francisco than in other parts of the US, his denial of the bicycle was based on something he, and many of us know: There were  "hundreds and hundreds of thousands of bikes languishing in garages all over the city."  With "a little bit of attention and time," they could be ridden for fun, fitness or transportation just as well as the bikes that had disappeared from bike shops' sales floors and suppliers' warehouses. 

So he gave those neglected machines the TLC they needed--in his North of Panhandle apartment. Soon his longtime friend and riding buddy Mike Connolly joined him.  Soon after, wheel builder Kat Siegal and transportation advocate Emily Horsman came aboard.  

Together, they would build a brick-and-mortar shop in a Balboa Street storefront.  Ever since, in addition to repairing and selling bikes, Scenic Routes has conducted repair classes and other events in its space.  "Our primary goal is to create a space that is centered around the community," Beaman says.  He defines that community as the geographic neighborhood and "transit people, bike people, urbanists."  Most of all, it's "people that believe in cities," he explains.

Anyone who's worked in or owned a bike shop knows you don't do it to get rich. (An old joke:  "How can you end up with a small fortune in the bike business?  Start off with a big one.") Beaman reports that Scenic Routes ended last year with a net profit of one percent, a business model he half-jokingly calls "anti-profit."

His vision is that it won't be a joke: He fantasizes having a rich benefactor (or benefactors) so he can lose money every year.  "How cool would it be if some rich person was like, 'Look, I am going to put a million dollars in your account, that's your endowment," he says.  "Then we could just lose 30 or 40 thousand dollars a year and it would be fine."

Now there's a business model I'm sure the Stanford MBA program--or any other MBA program--doesn't teach. For that matter, I'm not sure that any MPA program that trains people in non-profit administration has such a curriculum.

Perhaps those who administer and teach such programs are the real deniers:  They probably wouldn't (or couldn't) acknowledge the need for businesses or organizations like Scenic Routes.

The Real Reason For Cycle de Mayo

Today is Cinco de Mayo.  On this date in 1862, a poorly-equipped and badly-outnumbered Mexican army defeated their French counterparts at Puebla.

Although the victory is commemorated, this date is not a major holiday in Mexico.  But that doesn't stop the diaspora in the US and other countries from turning it into a celebration of their native land's culture and heritage*. And it doesn't stop other Americans, including ones who are about as Mexican as I am (which is to say not at all, at least to my knowledge!) from joining in the festivities--which, in some towns, include bicycle rides.

Of course, we all know that--if you'll pardon a paraphrase of the person who did more than anyone else to disgrace cycling--that it's not about the ride.  I mean, what better excuse for a nice hearty feast of tacos or whatever else you like than a couple of hours of pedaling.

*--At least it makes more sense (to me, anyway) than making Columbus Day a celebration of Italian pride.  I say that as someone whose heritage is half Italian.